I am wary of taking this thread even deeper OT so Mod's if you want to pare this thread back please delete.

I think the link between revenue production and pay is most clear and transparent in professions like banking where the product being money is easily translated into bonus. If I produce £20M for you due to my efforts wouldn't any rational employer pay me £1m or £2M to secure my services? I wish I did bring in that amount of revenue but the example is clear.

So whether you are selling hedging facilities and providing M&A advice, or selling double glazing there is always going to be a link between the amount you bring in and the amount you are paid.

For banks in the public sector there is a very simple choice either you can take a stand and say OK we still owe the Government £40Bn so until that is repaid no bonuses but then Johnny Trader who actually produced £20M of profit for the bank last year is going to bugger off to a bank without the same pay constraints, as it would be financial suicide for them to stay put. That would make the time to pay back the public borrowing longer not shorter surely? It would also potentially destroy a perfectly viable business as whole teams leave and competitors can build strength overnight.

I don't bracket Management Consultants in the same category as bankers at all. Consulting fee income is often opaque and the return to the lower rungs of the profession in terms of the proportion of total fee income generated are laughable compared to those in Tier 1 banks. I never get why anyone reasonably competent would carry on working for a firm like Accidenture for instance when they could earn considerably more working for themselves (as I do) unless they can get to Partner level quite quickly. Even McKinsey and Bain have a similarly low return of total fee revenue to the drones compared to the Queens.